Hypersensitivity reactions to proton pump inhibitors. An EAACI position paper.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing.

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions in various forms of mastocytosis: A pilot study of 2485 adult patients with mastocytosis collected in the ECNM registry.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HR) are common in mastocytosis. However, little is known about triggers and risk factors. The registry of the European Competence Network on Mastocytosis (ECNM) enables reliable studies in a larger cohort of mastocytosis patients. We assessed prevalence, triggers and risk factors of HR in adults with mastocytosis in the ECNM registry. METHODS: Data were collected in 27 ECNM centers. We analyzed potential triggers (Hymenoptera venoms, food, drug, inhalant and others) and risk factors at diagnosis and during follow-up. The study group consisted of 2485 adults with mastocytosis, 1379 women (55.5%) and 1106 men (44.5%). Median age was 48.2 years (range 18-91 years). RESULTS: Nine hundred and forty eight patients (38.1%) reported one or more HR`. Most common triggers were Hymenoptera venoms in cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM), whereas in advanced SM (advSM), most common elicitors were drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and penicillin. In multivariate analyses, tryptase level < 90 ng/mL, <15% infiltration by mast cells in bone marrow biopsy-sections, and diagnosis of ISM were identified as independent risk factors for HR. For drug-induced HR, prominent risk factors were advSM and high tryptase levels. New reactions were observed in 4.8% of all patients during 4 years follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HR are mainly triggered by Hymenoptera venoms in patients with CM and ISM and by drugs in patients with advSM. Tryptase levels <90 ng/mL, mast cell bone marrow infiltration <15%, and WHO category ISM are predictors of HR. New HR occur in 4.8% of all patients within 4 years.

Alpha-gal syndrome: when treatment of hypovolemic shock can lead to anaphylaxis.

Delayed anaphylaxis after ingestion of red meat because of galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) syndrome has increased in recent years. The mechanism involves an immunoglobulin E reaction to alpha-gal, a molecule found in mammalian meat, dairy products, medications and excipients containing mammalian-derived components, and tick salivary glycans. Sensitization occurs due to the bite of a lone star tick and the transmission of alpha-gal molecules into person's bloodstream. We describe a case of alpha-gal syndrome with severe food, drug, and perioperative allergy in which anaphylaxis with hypovolemic shock occurred immediately after an emergency surgical procedure, when a gelatin-containing drug was injected. This case study confirms that the clinical manifestations of alpha-gal syndrome could be different depending on the route of administration, with immediate reactions if an alpha-gal-containing drug is injected and delayed type allergic manifestations occurring several hours after oral intake. The purpose of this report is to highlight the importance of risk communication in case of exposure to medical products and surgical procedures of patients with alpha-gal syndrome and to encourage drug manufacturers to indicate clearly the origin of excipients in product literature.

Disease correlates and clinical relevance of hereditary α-tryptasemia in patients with systemic mastocytosis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic mastocytosis (SM) encompasses a heterogeneous group of clonal disorders characterized by abnormal expansion of mast cells (MCs). Beyond KIT and other genes recurrently mutated in myeloid neoplasms, several genetic variants have been described as predisposing to the development of the disease and influencing its clinical phenotype. Increased copy number variants of the TPSAB1 gene were identified as a cause of nonclonal elevated tryptasemia and defined as hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT). Moreover, HαT is enriched in patients with SM, where it can affect the incidence of mediator-related symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In a multicenter data set of 444 patients with MC disorders, we aimed to investigate the clinical correlates of germline TPSAB1 copy number gains. METHODS: Droplet digital PCR was performed in all cases to ascertain the presence of HαT. Clinical history along with blood values and bone marrow examination were analyzed. RESULTS: We confirmed a higher incidence of HαT+ cases (n = 59, 13.3%) in patients diagnosed with mastocytosis with respect to the general population (approximately 5%). HαT+ patients were characterized by a lower MC-associated disease burden and higher levels of tryptase. Several disease variables were coherent with this pattern, from bone marrow MC infiltration to MC-related histopathologic traits, which also accounted for a significantly higher incidence of clonal MC activation syndrome in HαT+ (10.2%) compared to HαT- (3.4%, P = .029) patients. We also confirmed that HαT+ carriers had a significantly higher frequency of anaphylaxis, without relevant differences for other clinical manifestations. CONCLUSION: These findings on a large patient series support and extend previous data, and suggest that knowledge of HαT status may be useful for personalized management of patients with SM.

Resensitization in suspected penicillin allergy.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of allergic reactions to penicillins (AR-PEN) is very complex as there is a loss of sensitization over time, which leads to negative skin tests (STs) and specific IgE in serum, and even to tolerance to the drug involved. However, STs may become positive after subsequent exposure to the culprit drug (resensitization), with the risk of inducing potentially severe reactions. The exact rate of resensitization to penicillins is unknown, ranging from 0% to 27.9% in published studies. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the rate of resensitization in patients with suggestive AR-PEN by repeating STs (retest) after an initial evaluation (IE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with suspected AR-PEN were prospectively evaluated between 2017 and 2020. They underwent STs, and a randomized group also underwent a drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit. Only patients with negative STs and/or DPT were included. All included cases were retested by STs at 2-8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients were included: 296 reporting immediate reactions (IRs) and 249 non-immediate reactions (NIRs). Eighty (14.7%) cases had positive results in retest (RT+): 63 (21.3%) IRs and 17 (6.8%) NIRs (p < 0.0001). The rate of RT+ was higher in anaphylaxis compared with all other reactions (45.8% vs 9.1%, p < 0.0001). The risk of RT+ was higher from the fifth week after IE (OR: 4.64, CI: 2.1-11.6; p < 0.001) and increased with the patient's age (OR: 1.02; CI: 1.01-1.04; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high rate of resensitization, retest should be included in the diagnostic algorithm of IRs to penicillins after an initial negative study, especially in anaphylaxis, to avoid potentially severe reactions after subsequent prescriptions of these drugs.

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy: an EAACI Position Paper.

Chemotherapeutic drugs have been widely used in the treatment of cancer disease for about 70 years. The development of new treatments has not hindered their use, and oncologists still prescribe them routinely, alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents. However, all chemotherapeutic agents can induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), with different incidences depending on the culprit drug. These reactions are the third leading cause of fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis in the United States. In Europe, deaths related to chemotherapy have also been reported. In particular, most reactions are caused by platinum compounds, taxanes, epipodophyllotoxins and asparaginase. Despite their prevalence and relevance, the ideal pathways for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these reactions are still unclear, and practice remains considerably heterogeneous with vast differences from center to center. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the allergological work-up in this field of drug hypersensitivity reactions. This position paper aims to provide consensus on the investigation of HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs and give practical recommendations for clinicians that treat these patients, such as oncologists, allergologists and internists. Key sections cover risk factors, pathogenesis, symptoms, the role of skin tests, in vitro tests, indications and contraindications of drug provocation tests and desensitization of neoplastic patients with allergic reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs. Statements, recommendations and unmet needs were discussed and proposed at the end of each section.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Mast Cell Activation Syndromes: Collegium Internationale Allergologicum Update 2022.

Mast cell activation syndromes (MCASs) are defined by systemic severe and recurrent mast cell activation, usually in form of anaphylaxis, a substantial, event-related increase of the serum tryptase level beyond the individual's baseline and a response of the symptomatology to drugs directed against mast cells, mast cell-derived mediators, or mediator effects. A number of predisposing genetic conditions, underlying allergic and other hypersensitivity states, and related comorbidities can contribute to the clinical manifestation of MCASs. These conditions include hereditary alpha tryptasemia, mastocytosis with an expansion of clonal KIT-mutated mast cells, atopic diathesis, and overt IgE-dependent and IgE-independent allergies. Several of these conditions have overlapping definitions and diagnostic criteria and may also develop concomitantly in the same patient. However, although criteria and clinical features overlap, each of these conditions is characterized by a unique constellation of variables and diagnostic criteria. Since two, three, or more conditions can coexist in the same patient, with obvious clinical implications, it is of crucial importance to diagnose the variant of MCAS precisely and to take all accompanying, underlying and potentially complicating conditions, and comorbidities into account when establishing the management plan. Indeed, most of these patients require multidisciplinary investigations and only a personalized treatment approach can lead to an optimal management plan providing an optimal quality of life and low risk of anaphylaxis.

Heritable risk for severe anaphylaxis associated with increased α-tryptase-encoding germline copy number at TPSAB1.

BACKGROUND: An elevated basal serum tryptase level is associated with severe systemic anaphylaxis, most notably caused by Hymenoptera envenomation. Although clonal mast cell disease is the culprit in some individuals, it does not fully explain this clinical association. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the prevalence and associated impact of tryptase genotypes on anaphylaxis in humans. METHODS: Cohorts with systemic mastocytosis (SM) and venom as well as idiopathic anaphylaxis from referral centers in Italy, Slovenia, and the United States, underwent tryptase genotyping by droplet digital PCR. Associated anaphylaxis severity (Mueller scale) was subsequently examined. Healthy volunteers and controls with nonatopic disease were recruited and tryptase was genotyped by droplet digital PCR and in silico analysis of genome sequence, respectively. The effects of pooled and recombinant human tryptases, protease activated receptor 2 agonist and antagonist peptides, and a tryptase-neutralizing mAb on human umbilical vein endothelial cell permeability were assayed using a Transwell system. RESULTS: Hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT)-a genetic trait caused by increased α-tryptase-encoding Tryptase-α/ß1 (TPSAB1) copy number resulting in elevated BST level-was common in healthy individuals (5.6% [n = 7 of 125]) and controls with nonatopic disease (5.3% [n = 21 of 398]). HαT was associated with grade IV venom anaphylaxis (relative risk = 2.0; P < .05) and more prevalent in both idiopathic anaphylaxis (n = 8 of 47; [17%; P = .006]) and SM (n = 10 of 82 [12.2%; P = .03]) relative to the controls. Among patients with SM, concomitant HαT was associated with increased risk for systemic anaphylaxis (relative risk = 9.5; P = .007). In vitro, protease-activated receptor-2-dependent vascular permeability was induced by pooled mature tryptases but not α- or ß-tryptase homotetramers. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for severe anaphylaxis in humans is associated with inherited differences in α-tryptase-encoding copies at TPSAB1.

Proceedings from the Inaugural American Initiative in Mast Cell Diseases (AIM) Investigator Conference.

The American Initiative in Mast Cell Diseases (AIM) held its inaugural investigator conference at Stanford University School of Medicine in May 2019. The overarching goal of this meeting was to establish a Pan-American organization of physicians and scientists with multidisciplinary expertise in mast cell disease. To serve this unmet need, AIM envisions a network where basic, translational, and clinical researchers could establish collaborations with both academia and biopharma to support the development of new diagnostic methods, enhanced understanding of the biology of mast cells in human health and disease, and the testing of novel therapies. In these AIM proceedings, we highlight selected topics relevant to mast cell biology and provide updates regarding the recently described hereditary alpha-tryptasemia. In addition, we discuss the evaluation and treatment of mast cell activation (syndromes), allergy and anaphylaxis in mast cell disorders, and the clinical and biologic heterogeneity of the more indolent forms of mastocytosis. Because mast cell disorders are relatively rare, AIM hopes to achieve a coordination of scientific efforts not only in the Americas but also in Europe by collaborating with the well-established European Competence Network on Mastocytosis.

Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity.

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%-3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re-exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test-negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re-exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial.

ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors are not a risk factor for severe systemic sting reactions and adverse events during venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether taking ß-blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). METHODS: In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking ß-blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. RESULTS: In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took ß-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% ß-blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of ß-blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re-stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took ß-blockers, none an ACEI. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides robust evidence that taking ß-blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629).

Clinical relevance of inherited genetic differences in human tryptases: Hereditary alpha-tryptasemia and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our current understanding of hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT), how HαT fits into the evolutionary context of tryptases and contemporary framework of mast cell-associated disorders, and to discuss the future clinical and therapeutic landscape for symptomatic individuals with HαT. DATA SOURCES: Primary peer-reviewed literature. STUDY SELECTIONS: Basic, clinical, and translational studies describing tryptase gene composition, generation, secretion, and elevation and the associated clinical impacts of HαT and treatment of such individuals were reviewed. RESULTS: HαT is a common autosomal dominant genetic trait caused by increased TPSAB1 copy number encoding α-tryptase. Approximately 1 in 20 White individuals have HαT, making it by far the most common cause for elevated basal serum tryptase levels. Although many individuals with HαT may not manifest associated symptoms, the prevalence of HαT is increased in patients with clonal and nonclonal mast cell-associated disorders wherein it is linked to more prevalent and/or severe anaphylaxis and increased mast cell mediator-associated symptoms. Increased generation of mature α/ß-tryptase heterotetramers, and their unique physiochemical properties, may be responsible for some of these clinical findings. CONCLUSION: HαT is a common modifier of mast cell-associated disorders and reactions. Nevertheless, whether HαT may be an independent cause of clinical phenotypes with which it has been associated remains unproven. Correct identification of HαT is critical to accurate interpretation of serum tryptase levels in the clinical evaluation of patients. Beyond HαT, we foresee tryptase genotyping as an important parameter in the standard workup of patients with mast cell-associated disorders and development of therapeutic modalities targeting these patients and associated clinical phenotypes.

Risk and management of patients with mastocytosis and MCAS in the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic: Expert opinions.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic has massively distorted our health care systems and caused catastrophic consequences in our affected communities. The number of victims continues to increase, and patients at risk can only be protected to a degree, because the virulent state may be asymptomatic. Risk factors concerning COVID-19-induced morbidity and mortality include advanced age, an impaired immune system, cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and cancer treated with chemotherapy. Here, we discuss the risk and impact of COVID-19 in patients with mastocytosis and mast cell activation syndromes. Because no published data are yet available, expert opinions are, by necessity, based on case experience and reports from patients. Although the overall risk to acquire the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may not be elevated in mast cell disease, certain conditions may increase the risk of infected patients to develop severe COVID-19. These factors include certain comorbidities, mast cell activation-related events affecting the cardiovascular or bronchopulmonary system, and chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs. Therefore, such treatments should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis during a COVID-19 infection. In contrast, other therapies, such as anti-mediator-type drugs, venom immunotherapy, or vitamin D, should be continued. Overall, patients with mast cell disorders should follow the general and local guidelines in the COVID-19 pandemic and advice from their medical provider.

Risk factors and indicators of severe systemic insect sting reactions.

Hymenoptera venom allergy ranks among the top three causes of anaphylaxis worldwide, and approximately one-quarter of sting-induced reactions are classified as severe. Fatal sting reactions are exceedingly rare, but certain factors may entail a considerably higher risk. Delayed administration of epinephrine and upright posture are situational risk factors which may determine an unfavorable outcome of the acute anaphylactic episode and should be addressed during individual patient education. Systemic mastocytosis and senior age are major, unmodifiable long-term risk factors and thus reinforce the indication for venom immunotherapy. Vespid venom allergy and male sex likewise augment the risk of severe or even fatal reactions. Further studies are required to assess the impact of specific cardiovascular comorbidities. Available data regarding potential effects of beta-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors in coexisting venom allergy are inconclusive and do not justify recommendations to discontinue guideline-directed antihypertensive treatment. The absence of urticaria/angioedema during sting-induced anaphylaxis is indicative of a severe reaction, serum tryptase elevation, and mast cell clonality. Determination of basal serum tryptase levels is an established diagnostic tool for risk assessment in Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients. Measurement of platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase activity represents a complementary approach but is not available for routine diagnostic use.

Clinical features and survival of patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis defined by the updated WHO classification.

BACKGROUND: In indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM), several risk factors of disease progression have been identified. Previous studies, performed with limited patient numbers, have also shown that the clinical course in ISM is stable and comparable to that of cutaneous mastocytosis (CM). The aim of this project was to compare the prognosis of patients with ISM with that of patients with CM. METHODS: We employed a dataset of 1993 patients from the registry of the European Competence Network on Mastocytosis (ECNM) to compare outcomes of ISM and CM. RESULTS: We found that overall survival (OS) is worse in ISM compared to CM. Moreover, in patients with typical ISM, bone marrow mastocytosis (BMM), and smoldering SM (SSM), 4.1% of disease progressions have been observed (4.9% of progressions in typical ISM group, 1.7% in BMM, and 9.4% in SSM). Progressions to advanced SM were observed in 2.9% of these patients. In contrast, six patients with CM (1.7%) converted to ISM and no definitive progression to advanced SM was found. No significant differences in OS and event-free survival (EFS) were found when comparing ISM, BMM, and SSM. Higher risk of both progression and death was significantly associated with male gender, worse performance status, and organomegaly. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm the clinical impact of the WHO classification that separates ISM from CM and from other SM variants.

SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media.

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) can be distinguished in immune-mediated (including allergic reactions) and non-immune-mediated reactions, even if clinical manifestations could be similar. Such manifestations range from mild skin eruptions to severe anaphylaxis, making it important for radiologists to know how to identify and manage them. A panel of experts from the Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM) and the Società Italiana di Allergologia, Asma e Immunologia Clinica (SIAAIC) provided a consensus document on the management of patients who must undergo radiological investigations with CM. Consensus topics included: the risk stratification of patients, the identification of the culprit CM and of a safe alternative by an allergy workup, as well as the use of premedication and the correct procedure to safely perform an elective (i.e., scheduled) or urgent examination. The most important recommendations are: (1) in all patients, a thorough medical history must be taken by the prescribing physician and/or the radiologist to identify at-risk patients; (2) in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to CM, the radiologist must consider an alternative, non-contrast imaging study with a comparable diagnostic value, or prescribe a different investigation with another class of CM; (3) if such options are not feasible, the radiologist must address at-risk patients to a reference centre for an allergy evaluation; (4) if timely referral to an allergist is not viable, it is recommended to use a CM other than the responsible one, taking into account cross-reactivity patterns; in the case of patients with histories of severe reactions, the presence of an anesthesiologist is also recommended and a premedication is suggested.

Adverse reactions to drugs and biologics in patients with clonal mast cell disorders: A Work Group Report of the Mast Cells Disorder Committee, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

Providers caring for patients with mastocytosis are tasked with the decision to consider therapeutic options. This can come with some trepidation because information available in the public domain lists numerous mast cell (MC) activators based on data that do not discriminate between primates, rodents, and MC lines; do not consider dosage; and do not take into account previous exposure and resultant clinical findings. This being said, there is support in the literature for an enhanced MC response in some patients with mastocytosis and in cases in which there is a greater incidence of adverse reactions associated with certain antigens, such as venoms and drugs. Thus this report provides a comprehensive guide for those providers who must decide on therapeutic options in the management of patients with clonal MC disease.

Controversies in drug allergy: In vitro testing.

Despite their low frequency, drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) can be serious and result in lifelong sequelae. The diagnosis is critical to avert future reactions and should identify the culprit drug or drugs and safe alternatives. However, making the diagnosis can be complex and challenging. Reliable in vitro tests can offer the potential to improve a diagnosis of DHR and influence medical decision making. Importantly, in vitro testing is frequently not performed as a test in isolation but rather as a component of a diagnostic algorithm along with additional tests. There are several in vitro approaches for the different endotypes of DHRs. However, only few are available for routine diagnosis, and many are restricted to research laboratories. In vitro tests exhibit varying sensitivity and specificity depending on the drug involved and the clinical phenotype. In vitro tests can complement skin tests, especially in patients with negative or equivocal skin test responses inconsistent with the clinical presentation and in severe reactions in which drug provocation tests are contraindicated. The main unmet need for many in vitro tests for the diagnosis of DHRs is validation in larger studies with standardized controls that could harmonize diagnostic management between the United States, European Union, and other regions of the world.